Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BILES, R. W.
Right arrow Articles by PIPER, C. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by BILES, R. W.
Right arrow Articles by PIPER, C. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1983 Oxford University Press

research-article

Mutagenicity Of Chloropropanol In A Genetic Screening Battery

ROBERT W. BILES and CHARLES E. PIPERA,A

Exxon Corporation East Millstone, New Jersey AHazleton Laboratories Vienna, Virginia

Mutagenicity Of Chloropropanol In A Genetic Screening Battery. Biles, R.W. and Piper, C.E. (1983). Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 3:37–34. A 72:25 mixture of l-chloro-2-propanol and 2-chloro-l-propanol was tested for genetic activity in a battery of short term tests. Chloropropanol was tested over a dose range of 527–167, 250 µg/plate in the Salmonella/mammalian microsome mutagenicity assay. A dose dependent mutagenic response was observed in strains TA 1535 and TA 100. Metabolic activation enhanced mutagenicity in both strains. Although chloropropanol was mutagenic in the TK+/– mouse lymphoma assay with and without metabolic activation, a smooth linear dose response relationship was not observed. Non-toxic mutagenic doses ranged from 5,000 to 10,000 µg/mL without activation. Chloropropanol was also mutagenic in the rat bone marrow cytogenetic assay. Rats dosed orally with 10,31 and 100 mg/kg/day for 5 days displayed no significant difference in mean body weight gain or mean mitotic index when compared to controls, however, a dose-response increase (significant) in the number of aberrations, mostly chromatid breaks, was observed in each case.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.